Wind farms - ugly truths

Capt'n Midnight · 23-10-2015 09:49PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

On the subject of gas prices - in 2014 alone the price of gas dropped a whopping 27% yet retail energy bills finished the year 5% higher. Riddle me that??

It's almost as if the utilities are hedging their prices by buying fossil fuel years in advance, instead of just buying gas on the day.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-10-2015 10:18PM

SeanW wrote: »

Let's see:
What affect windspread renewables usage will have on wildlife. Windmills are very hostile to birds and extremely lethal to bats

Is this about that one wind farm in California , built in a mountain pass with thousands of small turbines low to the ground ??

Modern wind farms are elevated way above most low fliers and have far fewer turbines

[*]Windmills and solar panels require a massive land take to generate any electricity.[/i]

Wind turbines can't be very close. But, apart form the plinth, the land can still be used for forestry, tourism and agriculture.

Solar takes up space. We have a lot of farm and industrial buildings. We have a lot of idle farm land. Parts of places like the Burren are bare rock. If you put solar on just the bogs that Board Na Mona have you could get 25GW. And that's not counting the newer more efficient panels on the way.

It was shown previously that to replace the output of a single nuclear power plant would require the usage of vast tracts of land solely for solar panels, or windmills.

The comparison was to an EPR plant , 12 years after the first one was approved for construction it's been delayed for yet another three years. So in reality the solar panel on my calculator has generated more power than all the EPR's. In fact if you take into account the fossil fuel inputs in construction my calculator will probably produce more nett power than all four European EPR's will this decade.

[*]The reality that these things are not reliable, and all the trouble that causes.

Don't get me started on how much back up you need for just to cover unreliable nuclear and how in the UK renewables have to subsidise it.

[*]I've shown previously that the effect of large scale renewables on the German grid has been extremely problematic for sensitive industrial users - even small micro-fluctuations can cause tens or even hundreds of thousands of euros worth of damage to sensitve industrial machinery, goods in production. Such fluctuations are now a regular occurance in Germany.

And ignored the way it rode over the solar eclipse.

Still sceptical of brown outs and frequency changes causing problems. Because industrial customers could sue if the power supply drifts too much.
Most of today's sensitive equipment uses switched mode power supplies and so should be fairly agnostic about the power supply , even to the point where it's easy to accommodate 90 - 250V AC supplies. ( actually they could probably work at 333V DC without modification )

[*]There has been no justification for wasting a fuel such as gas, that has such a high opportunity cost, as backup for unreliable wind and solar generators.

The gas used in the UK in 2013 for backup was only 0.081% of that saved. If you have problems with a 1200:1 ratio then there is just no pleasing you.

[*]There has been no justification whatsoever for increasing Europe's reliance on Russian gas - which a large scale move towards gas driven backup generation would inevitably require.

Because western Europe get most of it's gas from Norway, even Lithuania now imports LNG from the USA and of course there is the Corrib Gas Field.

[*]There has been nothing resembling a plan to have 90%+ non-fossil energy sources, like France.

LOL
France already has a lot of hydro and will be dropping down to 50% nuclear within 20 years. Most of the difference will be from renewables.

Birdnuts · 24-10-2015 01:44AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's almost as if the utilities are hedging their prices by buying fossil fuel years in advance, instead of just buying gas on the day.

Gas prices have been on a downward curve for nearly 3 years now.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/why-haven-t-falling-oil-and-gas-prices-led-to-lower-energy-bills-1.2065656

The responses are rather evasive and lacking in detail from the regulator and the companies involved but still suggest that hedging is usually only a few months in the Irish energy market

Not suprising in many ways given how poor the former has been at protecting consumers interests on these matters and not suprising either the usual guff from the companies, most of which also have wind farm interests which goes along way to explaining their "spin" on the matter

Birdnuts · 24-10-2015 01:55AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Very well hidden.

Lots of links to opinion pieces, but very few links to specifics.
Lots of stuff about how many gas plants are needed to backup wind whilst ignoring the bit they'd be needed anyway. Even at normal maximum demand on a windless winter evening we have 2GW of spare capacity.

There are a lot of grid upgrades that have nothing to do with renewables. But of course they'd be lumped into pylon sprawl, rather than linked to new gas plants or to provide redundancy or to increase capacity.

The skin effect limits the size of conductors you can use on AC. You can't just use thicker wires.

This is why, in addition to any lightening protection wire at the very top, you frequently see more than three wires on a pylon instead of just three thicker wires. When a pylon reaches capacity you can replace the cables with an aluminium alloy containing zirconium. They don't conduct electricity any better, but they keep their strength at a higher temperature like when you are pushing 50% more current through them. Beyond that it's using bigger pylons and / or another set of them. And at that stage for operational reasons you could run the other set on a different route to extend the grid while you are at it.

Oh by the way transmission costs are dropping in real terms. See graphs on last page. https://www.esb.ie/esbnetworks/en/downloads/esb_networks_summary_statistics.pdf?v=2014f

I suggest you read up on Grid 25 instead of coming out with things off the top of your head. The Graph you mention doesn't really say anything as it fails to specify the source of these costs. In contrast I showed firm costings for the Gridwest project concerning 2 wind farms in North Mayo. In any case your link has no relevance to the Grid 25 projects

Birdnuts · 24-10-2015 02:22AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wind turbines can't be very close. But, apart form the plinth, the land can still be used for forestry, tourism and agriculture.

Solar takes up space. We have a lot of farm and industrial buildings. We have a lot of idle farm land. Parts of places like the Burren are bare rock. If you put solar on just the bogs that Board Na Mona have you could get 25GW. And that's not counting the newer more efficient panels on the way.

.

Again you demonstrate your ignorance of the damage wind farms have done to peatlands in this country, which are important natural Carbon stores. As for the Burren, yeah lets cover this unique habitat with Chinese solar panels that will produce FA power over the winter peak demand time or any night. Sure why not stick a few wind farms in Killarney National Park while were at it. No doubt the tourists will love that:rolleyes:. Such statements are proof if proof was needed that many who support wind power at any cost are more "greenwash" than "green".

"Wind farms and the miles of new roads and tracks needed to service them damage or destroy peatland, meaning a reduced amount of carbon is absorbed into the peat bogs, and instead contributes to global warming in the atmosphere."

https://www.rt.com/news/wind-farms-carbon-dioxide-370/

plus other examples of the damage done to such sites in Ireland from wind farm developments and the ongoing failure of the planning process when it comes to allowing such developments on different types of peatlands

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/state-says-weak-planning-rules-not-to-blame-for-derrybrien-landslide-1.894039

http://www.irelandaerialphotography.com/aerial_photos/f5_3035_keeper-hill-tipperary-landslide.html

Tis green energy don't you know:P

Birdnuts · 24-10-2015 02:37AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Is this about that one wind farm in California , built in a mountain pass with thousands of small turbines low to the ground ??

Modern wind farms are elevated way above most low fliers and have far fewer turbines

.

No - its a growing issue around the world. But ignorance is bliss I guess when it comes to promoting wind energy as "green"

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/german-bats.html

http://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/news/wind-farm-lesotho-could-cause-local-extinction-vultures

fclauson · 24-10-2015 08:12AM

in terms of peat land damage - take read of
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2008/06/25114657/15

roads and turbine piles in bogs are very damaging - and not accounted for in Irish planning

BryanF · 24-10-2015 08:38AM

fclauson wrote: »

in terms of peat land damage - take read of
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2008/06/25114657/15

roads and turbine piles in bogs are very damaging - and not accounted for in Irish planning

Planning does account for bogs damaged.the alternative to wind farms is to burn turf?
we need to get real. we import ~90% fossil fuel. Visual impact, concrete foundations, the odd bird/batt nesting, cannot diminish the benifets of generating clean renewable electricity.

Gas, coal, peat, oil & petrol: the vast majority's home heating and transport needs. I'd rather be buying locally generated renewable electricity.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-10-2015 08:26PM

fclauson wrote: »

in terms of peat land damage - take read of
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2008/06/25114657/15

roads and turbine piles in bogs are very damaging - and not accounted for in Irish planning

From that link carbon payback time is a lot less than construction time for coal or nuclear power plants. The normal practice payback time is less than construction time for gas.

For the case-study, carbon dioxide payback time is very small due to good practice in the use of floating roads to minimise the need for additional drainage. The payback time is reduced from 5.12 years (no restoration) to 2.20 years calculated using the IPCC default values, and 1.87 years using the site specific emission factors.

Certainly less damaging than harvesting the bogs or draining them for other uses. Has the illegal turf cutting stopped ?

Also note that this only applies if roads are constructed on the bogs. If there are outcrops of rock or construction could be undertaken by low pressure machinery / floating roads then presumably the payback time drops drastically.

It reminds me of the RSPB who rate habitat loss as the biggest problem and are more concerned with the global effects of global warming than with the local loss of habitat that might occur with projects that could combat that warming.

Birdnuts · 25-10-2015 01:14AM

BryanF wrote: »

Planning does account for bogs damaged.the alternative to wind farms is to burn turf?
we need to get real. we import ~90% fossil fuel. Visual impact, concrete foundations, the odd bird/batt nesting, cannot diminish the benifets of generating clean renewable electricity.

Gas, coal, peat, oil & petrol: the vast majority's home heating and transport needs. .

And as discussed here that will continue to be the case no matter how many wind farms are built. What do you think powered the country over the several weeks of low wind conditions recently??

PS: There is nothing stopping people like yourself who appear to believe in "wind", from buying your own wind turbine and attempting to meet your own power needs this way .Certainly no one could object to that - but I suggest you have a diesel generator on standby or you will be be living a rather grim primitive existence much of the time.

Birdnuts · 25-10-2015 01:36AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It reminds me of the RSPB who rate habitat loss as the biggest problem and are more concerned with the global effects of global warming than with the local loss of habitat that might occur with projects that could combat that warming.

Hmmm

http://ornithologyexchange.org/forums/topic/11349-rspb-scotland-set-to-object-to-a-damaging-wind-farm-proposal-threatening-the-flow-country/

Direct killing and habitat destruction have always been and will continue to be the main drivers of extinction etc. The idea that plastering wind farms over fragile peatlands or other sensitive habitats is of benefit to the maintenance of biodiversity, is simply not credible on any measure

Birdnuts · 25-10-2015 01:57AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

From that link carbon payback time is a lot less than construction time for coal or nuclear power plants. The normal practice payback time is less than construction time for gas.

.

Kinda irrelevant given that baseload plants like that will always needed to back up wind.

fclauson · 25-10-2015 07:51AM

BryanF wrote: »

Planning does account for bogs damaged.the alternative to wind farms is to burn turf?
we need to get real. we import ~90% fossil fuel. Visual impact, concrete foundations, the odd bird/batt nesting, cannot diminish the benifets of generating clean renewable electricity.

Gas, coal, peat, oil & petrol: the vast majority's home heating and transport needs. I'd rather be buying locally generated renewable electricity.

BryanF

you depress me - after all the conversations we have had around building house right you want to sweepingly deploy technology which is not fit for purpose.

One point - many wind farms are foreign owned - so we effectively by paying these folks we "import wind" as a fuel because all of the revenue and many of the jobs are not based here in Ireland.

Burning turf is not the only alternative

fclauson · 25-10-2015 08:05AM

this interested me

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/energy-bills/11941251/British-energy-firms-charge-most-for-electricity-in-Europe-why.html

UK prices pre tax are higher than Ireland or Germany but they pay a lower VAT rate.

Would be interesting to find out if the "VAT" included "PSO Levy" or not

Markcheese · 25-10-2015 08:38AM

Just wondering - the new generation wind turbines , the ones that are 2 or three times the height of the spire - on top of hills - I assume they're a lot less damaging to bats - not gonna be aot of insects up that high - which is what the bats are after -
To be fair - if Current wind turbines are causing problems for birds and bats . That can be fixed - (sonic deterrents can be fitted to blades ,don't know how effective they are .)
Research could be done on local environmental impact of turbines but neither side will accept the others research - and are there any neutral interested parties -
Bigger towers (as is the current trend) will help reduce the impact on the ground as there are far fewer of them - of course the height makes them far more visable

fclauson · 25-10-2015 10:43AM

The issue with any of these wind farms is the acoustical and low frequency impact on anything which is living.

The larger units have a larger energy dispersal need - especially as the blade passes the tower. This energy dispersal which occurs in the audible (above 20Hz) and sub-audible range has been shown to cause a measurable medical impact on recipients

so no bigger is not better

Capt'n Midnight · 25-10-2015 01:00PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Kinda irrelevant given that baseload plants like that will always needed to back up wind.

Baseload plants do not backup wind.

tl;dr version
ROI base load is roughly 1GW and is supplied by steam.
The other 1GW-3GW demand comes from load balancing 6GW dispatchables, 3GW Wind and 1GW of Interconnectors.

=============================

For more info
Please read EirGrid Operational Constraints ROI base load of 1GW is covered by

There must be at least 5 high-inertia machines on-load at all times in Ireland. Required for dynamic stability.
...
There must be at least one Moneypoint unit on load at all times. Required to support the 400kV network.

see also Capacity Statement

Our minimum demand, summer nights, is roughly 2GW. And half of that could come from non-synch. Excluding the interconnector and wind we have 7GW of dispatchable plant.

But since non synchronous sources like wind and interconnector are allowed supply 50% of this (55% trial at the moment) most of the gas plant isn't used. Even on a summer day the demand only goes up to to 3GW so still lots of idle gas. Even without wind we barely hit 50% of dispatchable capacity half the year. In winter demand normally peaks at 4GW on weekday evenings so then we've only got 3G idle plant + Wind + Interconnector to fall back on. At record demand back in 2008 we didn't have as much wind or interconnector and that peak was only 5GW.

NB Wind forecasts are for about 400,000 seconds ahead whereas the Primary Operating Reserve takes up to 5 seconds to kick in. So the much hyped wind "unpredictability" just isn't an issue.

Markcheese · 25-10-2015 01:06PM

fclauson wrote:

The larger units have a larger energy dispersal need - especially as the blade passes the tower. This energy dispersal which occurs in the audible (above 20Hz) and sub-audible range has been shown to cause a measurable medical impact on recipients

fclauson wrote:

The issue with any of these wind farms is the acoustical and low frequency impact on anything which is living.

Again where is one going to find an honest broker who'll set up actual impartial tests that all sides would accept , I know i've never felt anything untoward anytime i've been at a wind farm ,or noticed any less birdsong or wildlife , but i'd have been there for short time and not doing a survey or comparing it to a similar hill with no wind farm ,( plus small wind farms too )
However i've noticed that cattle under and around wind turbines looking as relaxed as normal -

Capt'n Midnight · 25-10-2015 01:08PM

fclauson wrote: »

The issue with any of these wind farms is the acoustical and low frequency impact on anything which is living.

Most people in Ireland live near enough the coast that birds (well at least the ones that haven't been shredded by turbines yet) can hear the infrasound from waves.

fclauson · 25-10-2015 08:03PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Most people in Ireland live near enough the coast that birds (well at least the ones that haven't been shredded by turbines yet) can hear the infrasound from waves.

unfortunately the problem is more complex than that

take a look at
280112-003.jpg?w=500&h=375

and read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration_white_finger

in the first case it took engineers many years to realize what cause the collapse and in the second it took 90 years for a formal diagnosis and recognition to take place

I would suggest you read http://the-law-is-my-oyster.com/2015/09/16/research-into-wind-turbine-infrasound/
to update you self on wind farms and infra-sound

Capt'n Midnight · 26-10-2015 12:50AM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Direct killing and habitat destruction have always been and will continue to be the main drivers of extinction etc. The idea that plastering wind farms over fragile peatlands or other sensitive habitats is of benefit to the maintenance of biodiversity, is simply not credible on any measure

Habitat destruction is the main killer. Cats would be probably be the second for birds and small mammals worldwide.

Putting turbines on bogs means they can still be productive without draining or harvesting or covering them with trees. Otherwise there would be more pressure to do something with them. In an ideal world bogs would be restored to pristine condition but we live in a country that had lost 97% of it's forests at one stage so I wouldn't expect that to happen. Look at the pressure to sell off Coillte if you think our bogs would be set aside. Drainage especially in the midlands has taken away lots of natural environments.

Also look at the way offshore turbines have become safe havens for fish.

Birdnuts · 26-10-2015 02:04AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Baseload plants do not backup wind.

tl;dr version
ROI base load is roughly 1GW and is supplied by steam.
The other 1GW-3GW demand comes from load balancing 6GW dispatchables, 3GW Wind and 1GW of Interconnectors.

=============================

For more info
Please read EirGrid Operational Constraints ROI base load of 1GW is covered by see also Capacity Statement

Our minimum demand, summer nights, is roughly 2GW. And half of that could come from non-synch. Excluding the interconnector and wind we have 7GW of dispatchable plant.

But since non synchronous sources like wind and interconnector are allowed supply 50% of this (55% trial at the moment) most of the gas plant isn't used. Even on a summer day the demand only goes up to to 3GW so still lots of idle gas. Even without wind we barely hit 50% of dispatchable capacity half the year. In winter demand normally peaks at 4GW on weekday evenings so then we've only got 3G idle plant + Wind + Interconnector to fall back on. At record demand back in 2008 we didn't have as much wind or interconnector and that peak was only 5GW.

NB Wind forecasts are for about 400,000 seconds ahead whereas the Primary Operating Reserve takes up to 5 seconds to kick in. So the much hyped wind "unpredictability" just isn't an issue.

Can you show me a wind forecast that accurately predicts the output from every wind farm in the country on the many gusty convective days across this Ireland which as I pointed out are a feature of the wind regime in this part of the world??. Can you also list me the number of power plants the have been shut in this country on the back of increasing wind capacity which was the initial point I was making on the subject of peat bog damage. I think you should re-read your post as you appear to claim in your first paragraph that wind backs up wind

You also appear to equate wind energy with interconnector energy. As you well know energy via interconnectors is dispatchable and reliable energy - neither of which can be said of wind.

Birdnuts · 26-10-2015 02:17AM

Markcheese wrote: »

Bigger towers (as is the current trend) will help reduce the impact on the ground as there are far fewer of them - of course the height makes them far more visable

The sweep of their blades is a lot wider too which increases collision hazard. In this matter the big breakthough would be bladeless wind tubines of the type being trialed in Spain which are also cheaper to run and maintain . They already have good working proto-types but have got little support to develop their products further from the handful of big turbine manufactures that dominate the scene. In any case most wind developers couldn't care less about such issues as anyone who follows the planning files of ABP will attest with applications for windfarms everywhere and anywhere with little heed put on the sensitivity of particular sites.

Birdnuts · 26-10-2015 02:29AM

Markcheese wrote: »

Again where is one going to find an honest broker who'll set up actual impartial tests that all sides would accept , I know i've never felt anything untoward anytime i've been at a wind farm ,or noticed any less birdsong or wildlife , but i'd have been there for short time and not doing a survey or comparing it to a similar hill with no wind farm ,( plus small wind farms too )
However i've noticed that cattle under and around wind turbines looking as relaxed as normal -

Some windfarms are worse than others. There is already much evidence from Spain and other countries of significant mortality rates of rare/endangered species at some windfarms. In an Irish context there is a scientific publication called Irish Birds which in recent years has covered some research papers on this issue. The body of work in Ireland on this matter is still small(not least due to the reluctance of wind farm operators to allow access to their sites) but there is some evidence that certain wind farms are killing significant numbers of certain species locally. Some of these are already of a "threatened" status.

Birdnuts · 26-10-2015 02:44AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Putting turbines on bogs means they can still be productive without draining or harvesting or covering them with trees. Otherwise there would be more pressure to do something with them. In an ideal world bogs would be restored to pristine condition but we live in a country that had lost 97% of it's forests at one stage so I wouldn't expect that to happen. Look at the pressure to sell off Coillte if you think our bogs would be set aside. Drainage especially in the midlands has taken away lots of natural environments.

Also look at the way offshore turbines have become safe havens for fish.

Wind farm construction on bogs involves extensive drainage,vegetation removal etc. to accommodate new service roads, pylons, substations, turbine bases etc. As links already posted here show, that causes extensive damage to the bogs functions and the results are as damaging as industrial forestry, peat removal etc. in terms of emission loss( and this loss is even more significant as you have to include the loss of future CO2 sequestration as a drained bog can't play that role in the Carbon cycle). Methane release is also a significant issue here and that is a far more potent greenhouse case than CO2. At least bogs that have been exhausted by peat extraction can be restored by re-blocking drains etc. This cannot be done when windfarms are present.

PS: Off shore wind farms can damage marine life too http://us.whales.org/news/2014/10/scottish-windfarms-decision-bad-for-marine-mammals

AngryHippie · 26-10-2015 03:25AM

Birdnuts wrote: »

At least bogs that have been exhausted by peat extraction can be restored by re-blocking drains etc. This cannot be done when windfarms are present.

Pray tell why not ?

A 60m high turbine is going to be founded on bedrock, and not in any way dependent on the highly reactive peat soil above.

There is no reason why a bog could not be restored in and around a windfarm.
roadways do pose a small issue, but that only takes some reasonably affordable conventional engineering to overcome.

AngryHippie · 26-10-2015 03:29AM

Birdnuts wrote: »

PS: Off shore wind farms can damage marine life too http://us.whales.org/news/2014/10/scottish-windfarms-decision-bad-for-marine-mammals

The article you have linked specifically references boat propellers and pile driving activities.

Neither of these are exclusive to wind farms, and neither of these activities are permanent or sustained by wind farms.

In fact, if you look at pile driving operations to the east of Scotland, I'm fairly sure you will find oil exploration/extraction to have been a major culprit, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Capt'n Midnight · 26-10-2015 12:47PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Can you show me a wind forecast that accurately predicts the output from every wind farm in the country on the many gusty convective days across this Ireland which as I pointed out are a feature of the wind regime in this part of the world??.

You just don't get the concept of operating reserve do you ?

Anyway gusts average out over the interconnected area.

But for the sake of argument, lets imagine there is a gust blowing past a turbine on a wind farm. If the nearest turbine is 300m away and the gust gets there in the 5 seconds it takes for Operating Reserve to kick in then the weather front is moving at over 200Km/hr :eek:

Besides if it was a real problem the technology already exists to measure wind speed at every single turbine in the country and abroad. Then again exact demand can't be predicted that precisely either.

Can you also list me the number of power plants the have been shut in this country on the back of increasing wind capacity

I've tried to explain that 6GW out of the 7GW of dispatchable plant we have installed may not be used on a windy summer night. And most of the remaining 1GW base load is steam anyway.

Gas here is used opportunistically. If the demand is there and the price is right gas gets used. Since 3GW of dispatchable capacity is spare even during peak time most winters, most of the time most of our gas plant is idle anyway. It appears I can't repeat this too often, most of the time most of the gas plant is idle or at best generating only a fraction of it's peak capacity.

It's exactly the same for wind.

Anyway.
We still need gas plant for peaking, the only difference is that with renewables there are fewer peaks.

You also appear to equate wind energy with interconnector energy. As you well know energy via interconnectors is dispatchable and reliable energy - neither of which can be said of wind.

*sign*
interconnector energy can't be used for frequency stability, and we export over it too. So like gas and wind it's down to prices vs. supply and demand and you can't use it for grid stability.

I could ask you the same meaningless question , how much gas plant has been replaced by the dispatchable interconnector ?

Or maybe , just maybe it's back to the whole price vs. supply and demand thing like all the other generators and as long as they are making money it's worth keeping them going.

Capt'n Midnight · 26-10-2015 02:49PM

AngryHippie wrote: »

Pray tell why not ?

A 60m high turbine is going to be founded on bedrock, and not in any way dependent on the highly reactive peat soil above.

There is no reason why a bog could not be restored in and around a windfarm.
roadways do pose a small issue, but that only takes some reasonably affordable conventional engineering to overcome.

or use low pressure machinery not unlike Bord na mona use to access the site.

There are alternatives like hovercraft, temporary railways, helicopters may be way too expensive, but perhaps airships. It's a learning curve and they're still learning. It's economics too, roads aren't cheap.

djpbarry · 26-10-2015 06:50PM

SeanW wrote: »

Let's see…

I’ve already addressed everything you’ve listed there, most of which is just opinion, by the way. I have neither the time nor patience to repost everything again, particularly when it's obvious you're not taking anything on board.

Wind farms - ugly truths

Comments